Monday Night Football. The final play of the Seahawks – Packers game. The Seahawks need a touchdown to win. Russell Wilson sends his receivers deep into the corner of the end zone, says a Hail Mary, and heaves a ball into their general area hoping a Seahawks player gets on the end of the ball. After a brief scramble and a tussle on the ground two referees stand over the players and suddenly signal touchdown — Seahawks win.
And that’s when every sports fan’s nightmare scenario begins. The referees review the play on video, see that the offensive player fouled a defender to clear himself space, and see that the Packers’ other defender is above the Seahawks player and seems to catch the ball first, but award the touchdown anyway. If American football has been using video replay since the 90s and still can’t get all the calls right then introducing video replay to the Premier League would not only kill the flow of the game but be pointless as well, right?
Wrong. There are problems with video replay but the good far outweighs the bad.
I watched a lot of American football as a kid almost all of it on television and all of it under constant review by the commentators. I can’t remember watching a single sporting event as a kid (other than the games I played in) without commentators reviewing every play, stopping the action, rewinding, and showing multiple camera angles. All of which was in order to show us what the correct call should have been. My overwhelming impression from that period is that the officials got a lot of calls wrong.
The one poor call that stands out most in my mind was Vinny Testaverde’s “ghost touchdown”. In American football, the ball need only break the plane of the end zone for a touchdown and as you can plainly see, the ball did not break the plane. Testaverde’s helmet arguably didn’t even break the plane. But a touchdown was called, video replay was not consulted, Seattle was robbed of a win, failed to make the playoffs, and the very next year video replay was (re)introduced to American Football.
Since then, video replay refereeing has been such a smashing success that despite the few high profile blown calls almost no one is calling for an end to video refs. In fact, quite the opposite, after every blown call the fans demand more refinement and more in-depth reviews of plays. The fans in America demand that the referees have the same view of the game that they have and that they make the calls based on what they see rather than what they are allowed to call.
That last bit “what they are allowed to call” is the sticking point for all the calls in question. The reason that the Seahawks won the game against the Packers is because the officials missed the Seahawks receiver fouling the defender live. If they then see the foul committed in replay for the first time, they are not allowed to call the play the right way.
Similarly, officials who are not allowed to use video technology (such as the officials in the Premier League) must at the very least watch Match of the Day and rue the calls that they blew and that they were not allowed to get right because the Premier League is stuck in the 1990′s and won’t allow referees to use video to get more calls right.
Note that I said “more calls right” not “all the calls right” because no matter what system you implement you will never get all the calls right, it’s just not possible. The first obstacle to perfection is that when you institute a video replay system someone has to decide what players can be reviewed and what plays cannot. Therefore, by definition some plays will continue to be called incorrectly.
In addition to that there’s an infinite regression problem with refereeing by video. The more technology we implement to monitor the games, the smaller and smaller the margins become when calling them. For example, if we want to review offsides one could imaging debate arising over when the ball left the boot relative to the position of his teammate. “Was there space between the ball and boot?” Could be the question that many would debate aided by slow motion, digital enhancement, and probably even a telestrator or two.
I know, you are probably shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that video referees are not perfect. But then they don’t have to be perfect for them to be used effectively in the Premier League. The current referee system is far from perfect, so video referees would just have to be better. And especially better with the really big calls. That this Seahawks game is such a huge deal is exactly because it happens so very rarely in the NFL. Ask yourself how many Premier League games have been decided by a terribe refereeing decision. This year..
The Premier League though is stuck in the 1990s when it comes to video replay refereeing. The League is no longer just a local concern: something for a few thousand people from a catchment area around a stadium to go see on the weekends. The League is now beamed into millions of people’s homes and pubs around the world. And the viewing audience get to see every controversial call run and re-run ad infinitum both in the original broadcast and now on YouTube and via GIFs. The medium is the message and the message that the rest of the world is getting is one of a musty old product that’s been stuffed into a sleek new box.
Despite the various and high profile failings of American Football’s video replay scheme there are precious few fans who seriously want to abandon the video refereeing system. You might think that after the Packers were jobbed by the referees, who had the benefit of video replay, there would be a hue and cry to get rid of the video refs, but instead there are millions who want more video refereeing. People who demand more accuracy.
Sorry but it’s time for the Premier League to join the late 20th century and embrace this old technology. Once they do, though, they know, we will all wonder why we put up with the referees before video replay.
*Except Arsenal, HA HA
How would video replay (on plays other than questionable goals) be integrated without stopping play? Would it be a guy in a booth who could just chat with the ref through a headset? That would make sense to me but I still don’t see how that wouldn’t stop the game. I’m all for video replay but I don’t see how it won’t stop play. Horrible fouls could be retroactively punished of course as well.
There are already stoppages in play after every foul, every goal, every free kick, every dive, every fake injury, every Stoke throw-in, and every offside.
There are also stoppages in play whenever a referee just feels like making people take a kick or throw over again or feels like telling someone they have fouled too many times or wants to send Arsene Wenger to the stands.
It’s a myth that there are no or few stoppages in play in a 90 minute football match. Extending one or two of them by 30 seconds (added on to make Fergie happy) would hardly even be noticed.
Can’t you that if video replay is allowed, it becomes a lot harder to fix the matches?
Please dont be biased and use the Seahawks Packers game because that game was officiated but borderline amateur referees because the FULLY trained refs were on strike. No1 in the NFL community thot that was the correct call, and after that the NFL fixed all its disputes with the FULLY trained refs, to use that example shows lack of proper research. None of the officiating team was FULLY versed on the rules so players and coaches took advantage of that.
So what’s the excuse for yesterday’s blown call in the Packers/Saints game when Sproles clearly fumbled the ball? The regular refs didn’t cover themselves in glory there.
They weren’t on strike. They were locked out. Big difference.
“Sorry but it’s time for the Premier League to join the late 20th century…”
===
Agree completely, Tim, but give them more time. Football is just now joining the mid 20th century. You want the Premier League to get on the late 20th-century bus, but football is still asking Rosa Parks to give up her seat.
I hold out hope that one day everyone connected to football will realize that it’s racist to say that an African man’s father washes elephants. But given the entrenched arguments about ‘banta’ I’m guessing that will be around 2020
graham poll writes in todays daily mail ” there should be an official time keeper, the same as there is in rugby”. if football did this it would be a step in the right direction. he also says that official time stats from the champions league show that the ball is in play less than 25 minutes per half so there seems to be plenty of time to do video replays
As long as corrupt officials like Blatter and Platini are in power, video technology is likely to remain a distant dream.
Tim,
I certainly agree that games don’t need to be stopped for very long to make a quick, informed decision. The EPL (and NFL for that matter) should take a look at the system the NHL has in place. ALL reviewable plays are reviewed by a panel at a centralized location. This panel has live access to every game being played and beams the information to the live event (via the “Internet”) in question.
The problem I see with implementing video in Football is the continuity of the sport, not meaning the lack of stoppages. For instance, lets suppose a team is pressing forward and a goal is wrongfully disallowed, play continues and the defending team now breaks to counter – and scores. I also wonder how offside could be called since a breaking player being called offside completely stops and halts the move.
American Football is interstingly designed for reviews since there are structured, built in breaks after each play. It will be interesting to see how replay is eventually deployed in the EPL.
To disallow a goal, the referee has to blow the whistle. Not to mentioned the goal keeper actually has to pick the ball up from the net which means the play stops and that gives enough time for the play to be review. The question of a counter attack doesn’t even arise here.
* in english this time:
To disallow a goal, the referee has to blow the whistle. Not to mention the goal keeper actually has to pick the ball up from the net which means the play stops and that gives enough time for the play to be reviewed. The question of a counter attack doesn’t even arise here
The ref doesn’t always blow the whistle to disallow a goal. Think back to Lampard in the las World Cup. Goals like his that barely cross the line are not whisteled to stop play, nor does the keeper need to remove the ball from the back of the net… play just carries on when the ball is cleared (wrongly) off the line.
As for offside – what about teams who play highlines and a player is wrongfully called ofside 30+ yards from goal? This ofcourse would halt the play. Would we see officials call offside more linient to allow a player to continue his movement, knowing they have the replay to fall back on after the movement is done?
As for the offside issue, the solution is simple. Players will have to be explicitly asked to finish off moves so that goal can be reviewed after he has scored. Every goal should be automatically reviewed.
Video replay Now, please. (In soccerball – EPL). For me, the reason some of our players leave is because they fully understand that officials don’t want Arsenal to win anything. I believe players like Hleb and even vP Think they have a better chance to “win” elsewhere. (How many penalties have ManU had already this season? How many have Arsenal had? What about last season? What about since, say, 1999?
Have a look at the refereeing of the man in charge of refs in the EPL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM747L9Wf8M
It didn’t take long for him to be promoted, but on what basis?
Even during Saturday’s match I counted many fouls by Chelsea players that simply weren’t given inc. a nice bash on the head for Gervihno – in the penalty box. This has been going on for years. Tim you’ve posted .gif’s of Ferdinand kung-Fu kicking Sagna. Right in front of our dear friend H. Webb. (No foul). Webby repeated the crap in the World Cup final. Saturday’s ref, Martin Atkinson is, I believe, the same one who robbed ManU (not that I care) of the title 2 or 3 years ago when the scumchavs went up to Old Toilet, right?
Anyways, the chance of lessening corruption utterly depends on video replay. There’s no other way.
Everybody knew that Mike Riley had a Man U kit on underneath.
Oh yes, and we (EPL) sent you Peter Walton, to head up MLS refs. How’s that going?
The referee we had in the NY Red Bulls vs Toronto FC game let the players play. So the official was not noticeable and that’s what any fan wants. Whether that’s the Walton ‘effect’ is an unknown.
Henry was masterful in the game with 3 assists and and a stunning exclamation point of a goal to make 4-1.
Thanks for that. I’ve seen Henry’s delicious lob but not the other two. I’ll look ‘em up.
I used to scoff at comments from supporters complaining about officiating bias against Arsenal. But that was 3 years ago. The long, hard campaigns in between have made me a believer. Some dodgy calls as they invariably must, have gone our way but “the truth is out there”: there is a bias, plain and simple and it has cost us mightily. In points, in injuries, in trophies.
So this is the self-serving argument, which is only proper for an Arsenal blog As rantella @2:21 has noted, I’m sure it’s one of the considerations players may think about to at least some small degree.
It was an entertaining NFL weekend with a few close, exciting games. Unfortunately the returning refs had a hand in everyone of those scores, so video technology is indeed is “no panacea”. But the infrastructure for getting things right at least exists in the NFL, which is for better and worse, a true 21st century league.
Can’t agree more.
Football needs to move into the 21st century.
The belief that the continuous nature of the game makes video review impossible to implement is a bit of a red herring. Advocates for video review don’t want every single possible on pitch decision to be reviewed. We just want video review to help get more (NOT every single one to the) big decisions right. For example, I think two of the biggest types of decisions in any game involve correctly awarding goals and penalties. So why not just review every goal and penalty awarded in a game?
For goals, most of the controversial decisions involve offsides. There are certainly many more debatable offsides decisions than debates about whether the ball crossed the plane of the goal mouth and governing bodies are seemingly willing to implement technology not currently in the game to track the latter situation. So how hard would it be to video review every goal to see if a player was offsides? The review occurs during a natural stoppage of play so nothing to disturb the precious flow of the game. And the number of incorrectly awarded goals would drop rather dramatically. It doesn’t address the opposite situation of an incorrect offsides decision canceling out a good scoring opportunity directly. However, if linesman knew that goals were reviewed for offsides, they could then be instructed to not call offsides for marginally close calls and then play would be allowed to proceed with the knowledge that it would be reviewed.
Similarly, review every penalty decision. There’s a natural stoppage for the review to occur. If it’s determined on replay that no foul occurred the decision is reversed. If the offensive player went down too easily or dived, the decision is reversed and the attacker gets carded for simulation. This might have the added benefit of decreasing simulation if players knew they would be scrutinized in slow motion replay. It doesn’t help the opposite situation of not getting a bona fide penalty which wasn’t called but maybe a side benefit of less diving would be penalty calls are easier to make.
So there’s just two very simple ways of using video replay to help get the big decisions correct which wouldn’t add any additional stoppages at all.
I’ve watched about 5 NFL games in my life, but bizarrely I was watching live when the incident you are talking about took place on Monday.
Just to strengthen your argument, I don’t know if you’ve watched any rugby lately. They have video playback on tries only, since 2001. To score a try you have to have control of the ball and ground it over the line, and you can’t get tackled short of the line and then bounce or heave yourself over. Lots of tries happen out near the corner flags at high speed, with two or more 240-pound blokes crashing over, or happen very slowly under a big pile of 240-pound blokes in a morass of arms and legs. For any try, the ref can ask for the video ref to look at replay, and will signal what he wants the video ref to check (was the ball held up in the tackle, was it dropped before it was grounded, did the player have a foot out of play etc). They go to video on maybe 50% of tries, and the process generally takes about 1-2 minutes. Everyone is happy with the technology and how it is being used: refs, players, clubs, fans.
I’m guessing there is only ever a question mark over about 20% of goals in football where there might have been an offside call or a foul / handball by the attacking player. You could also use it for penalty decisions. As football moves flow from one end to the other, the key in my opinion is that:
1. the ref is the one who makes the decision to use video
2. the ref specifies the question he wants video ref to answer, and that’s the only thing they can look at.
For example, if there’s a question over whether the ball crossed the line, I don’t think you want a video ref saying it did cross the line but then disallowing the goal for an earlier foul or an offside that the ref missed.
Oh and btw, on offsides and ball-over the line stuff we shouldn’t be using video. We should skip the 20th century and move right into the 21st – put a chip and motion sensor in the ball and one on every player and let a computer take care of offside decisions in real time.